About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
caucus, and that's grover norquist, who is not a member of this house, to say that the pledge that people should honor is the pledge to the u.s. constitution and not the pledge to grover norquist. >> speaker boehner was on fox news on sunday, and he says as he described negotiations, we're nowhere, period. we are nowhere. 29 days to go. we have some analysts such as our first read team that say the real negotiations won't begin until mid-november. already you have wall street and everyday people bracing for another 11th hour situations. how would you categorize where things stand right now 29 days out? >> well, i think 29 days in politics, as you know, is a very long time. i actually feel confident that we will reach a proposal. i say that because i know speaker boehner and his caucus does not want taxes raced on every single person in the united states. there is a proposal sitting in our house right now passed out of the senate that would maintain the cuts for 98% of the u.s. population. >> we will talk about that a little later in a move that was mentioned by nancy pelosi. you express c
counter broker and the man who does not believe in unicorns, pink or otherwise, mr. grover norquist. grover, what a day to have you on the show. thanks for joining us. >> absolutely. of course, you know, north korea and -- media announced they did find unicorns in north korea. >> we don't often take our cues from them. i am one that firmly believes in the existence of unicorns somewhere and hopefully maybe in this fiscal cliff deal. grover, the first question i have for you is this, your pledge, the pledge that many republicans have signed on to, opposes any and all efforts to increase marginal income tax rates and opposes any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits unless matched for dollar by further reducing tax rates. closing loopholes and ending deductions would seem to increase the tax burden that americans are paying to the federal government. given that, do you support the proposal put forward by john boehner? >> well, because the proposal is significantly amorphous, you could get those revenues through economic growth and we don't really have things nailed do
. and opposing tax increases doesn't change that reality. there's nothing in grover norquist's pledge that stops the ageing process. so there's no way the tax receipts of the 1960s will support the demographics of america in the 2030s. anyone who says otherwise is not taking the reality seriously. joining us is a man who always takes reality seriously. chris hayes. so one thing i always think is true in our political discussions is we don't like to face up to big changes. we like to use them as evidence for whatever policies are adapting. but the ageing of the society, i don't think we have come close to thinking about what that will mean for our economy or the government or any of it it. >> the only discussion we have is we're getting older so the entitlement programs will go bankruptcy. taking the reality seriously. joining us is a man who always takes reality seriously. chris hayes. so one thing i always think is true in our political discussions is we don't like to face up to big changes. we like to use them as evidence for whatever policies are adapting. but the ageing of the society, i don
mentioned grover norquist. he's making a new prediction, by the way. let's listen. >> understand how ugly the next four years are going to get. everything in obamacare that obama didn't want you to focus on or think about, the 90% of his trillion-dollar tax increase was pushed over till after he got himself safely re-elected. all those regulations you're now hearing about, okay, those all hit after the election. we've got four bad years of regulation taxes. he wants to add higher taxes to that. tea party 2 is going to dwarf tea party 1 if obama pushes us off the cliff. >> so basically, jon, what grover norquist is saying there to members of the tea party set who have been elected, who were elected, is, you know, we're going to take everybody who is against us into a primary on your right. >> right. >> on the republican side. >> right. >> so the threat has been issued already, even before we begin negotiating what the package will be. >> oh, yeah. >> this is like political terrorism. >> well, it's certainly a clear bargaining position. i remember three years ago talking to a longtime membe
the election in 1992, and which we're still living, because that gave us grover norquist, et cetera. >> let's get to grover norquist in a minute, but i do have a question. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in savings over a decade. that includes raging the eligibility age for medicare from 65 to 67. and lowering cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue. but without raising taxes on the wealthy. in a letter to the president, leading republicans compared their plan to one erskine bowles drew up last year. >> not even close. >> he rejected that connection and the white house, of course, is hitting the road. we'll get to that in a moment. but here's my question. i've been watching the coverage of this and reading it. and there's a lot of liberals who were like, he won, ha, ha, they're so arrogant about it, it's hard to like them. because it's just not attractive. but he did -- >> yeah, he won. >> and he is going to the american people with this. and why can't the starting point of these negotia
. >> they only need about 25 republicans to step over to agree to do this. and you're seeing grover norquist grip fall apart. this is a really important thing to do to improve the lives of young people. one thing to keep in mind, it is younger workers who are being hurt the most. the job games are heavily among 55 and over. we don't want to have a society where we get cynical young people that there's no woint in playing by the rules because you won't get a job any way. >> why not go over the cliff? if we go over the cliff, we're talking solving the financial problems. but we run the risk -- i think we might dip but it won't be anything like the first chart. what about that? >> i think that that may well be a good idea. it's risky, ed. there's some risk as to what will happen. but the fact is the government would then have all of this revenue. if it spends that revenue to create jobs and regardless of what the republicans say, government creates jobs all the time from school teachers like your money to people like my brother who was a ditch digger and could get to work because he was cleaning out
. the politics has to be traverse. they've got to get through the rocky shoals of grover norquist. >> does that make it easier to keep politics out of it? >> i think it helps for the two men to make a deal that might work for all sides. i sound like i'm a broken record for myself but i'm still trying to find out if both parties are trying to find a win-win deal, something that they can both sell as a win or if one or both is simply trying to get everything they want and let the other guy -- >> but can the other side do that? it would seem if the momentum is with the president, he would be the one more likely to dig in and say, i'm going to take a clear win. >> true. and it's possible that the president, given how the election went and given the fact that a couple of years ago he had to give what the republicans wanted on the taxes issue might say, look, i've had enough. i'm not doing that anymore. however, if there's going to be a deal that's going avert the cliff, the speaker can cannot sell just anything. he's going to have to get entitlement reform or significant spending cuts that are
grover norquist for quite some time. you went to the meeting, his wednesday meeting. >> that's right. >> he has all the time with some of the most powerful conservatives in d.c. and across the country attending. what was their attitude about any deal that boehner might have to make? >> it's pretty interesting when you talk to house republicans because they look at boehner from two different perspectives. on one side, boehner went in front of the house conference and he said, i'm not going to back any deal that increases rates. so they feel pretty confident on rates. that's where i think "the new york times" comes from. on rates they think boehner is still with house conservatives. at the same time, there's a lot of raised eyebrows right now because just as boehner is promising not to buckle on rates, he's purging four conservatives from committee. >> i was going to ask you about that. now, newt, and bob livingston tried that with mark newman back in '95. that didn't work out well for him. we said we're going to vote against every appropriations bill that you put up now. and the next
've got to get through the rocky shoals of grover norquist. >> right. >> and all those folks. >> and you have to get through the rocky shoals of nancy pelosi when you start talking entitlements. >> you see democrats who are, i think, talking very realistically about what needs to be done. on entitlements, i think the question isn't whether we have to do something about medicare, it's how we do something about medicare. >> so wouldn't that be -- and maybe it's naive of me to even bring this up -- but wouldn't that be important for them to take on what those are together and shoulder to shoulder? >> what i remember last summer when the president said to boehner essentially, let's lock arms and jump off the, you know, at that point it was a different kind of cliff, together. it's going to require both leaders. each is going to have to make sacrifices. in order to get this done. and i think that, you know, i think everybody recognizes the consequences of not getting it done. >> so how do you tell republicans that won't support a tax increase unless they believe entitlement reform's coming? h
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)